Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 29 July 2011

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Gihan Sami Soliman

• Gihan Sami Soliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doveye71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor (and quite possibly the same as User:dove.eyes) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. OlYeller 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. OlYeller 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, she resumed editing it again. Hmmmphh. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post this here. I asked them to stop, they agreed, and have since ignored my messages here on their talk page. Last night she left a message on the talk page of the article about her. It seemed like she understood the guidelines then immediately started talking about supporting her cause. It's obviously a COI, that she's here with an agenda, and that she isn't going to stop editing the article even when asked to. On one hand, I suggest a block but on the other hand, the article is going to be deleted soon anyway. The real issue is with the related articles that she's editing at Ahmed Abdel Azeem and Port Said American School. I no longer see how a block can be avoided with such a blatant disregard for of WP:COI and the requests of other editors. OlYeller 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She also added more external links to the article today, then claimed "she didn't know better." That is certainly not true. She had been warned MANY times about this, even at the beginning of this AfD. She cannot grasp the COI issues with this article and the others you mentioned. At this point, further disregard for Misplaced Pages policies should be treated like vandalism, IMHO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

She's socking the AfD now. She mistakenly replied as another SPA user then tried to remove the comment after sinebot signed for her. I'm going to initiate an SPI. Lots of people have been jumping through hoops to help her with the article and understand WP policies and guidelines and I think this is way out of line. OlYeller 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI can be found here. OlYeller 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The SPI has concluded and Doveye71 has been blocked for 48 hours and her socks have been indefinitely blocked. The article was deleted this morning at the conclusion of the AfD. I'm hoping this issue just goes away but I'll keep an eye on things. OlYeller 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

L3C

• L3C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RobertMLangJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar. The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user to either identify themselves per WP:REALNAME on their talk page. OlYeller 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Things have turned fairly nasty on his talk page. He seems to feel rather attacked ("I have to say I very much resent the implications and insinuations made here.") and feels that he should be able to post what he wants here because its his own voice. He's also mentioned that, "Please call me at if you wish to discuss. I do not have time for a protracted email exchange and if you put me into that space I will merely turn it over to one of our attorneys." Not a legal threat exactly but not exactly a good start. OlYeller 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently a copyright violation. In an attempt to convince the author and movement/organization creator to talk with us, I've let him know that the article will be deleted soon if the copyright violation is addressed. I gave him a link to WP:DCM. I'm going to wait to see what happens. OlYeller 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Miami Vice

• {Miami Vice}
• {srobak}

I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. Ferrariman1954 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Edited EyeSerene 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at our Miami Vice article, or at the article history - I'll leave it for others to comment on whether srobak has done anything wrong. I will point out however that Misplaced Pages:External links policy, in particular WP:FANSITE, would suggest that your website should not be linked too in our article: we aren't here to provide a directory to other websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's right, and if you want a third (fourth?) opinion on the matter, you might want to post at WP:External links/Noticeboard, which specializes in evaluating links like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have indicated here that you are the administrator of the fan forum, it appears that by linking to it that you are also violating WP:COI, in addition to WP:FANSITE, WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO. Add to that you have now also violated WP:OUTING for A SECOND TIME. This continued conduct needs to cease. Srobak (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To further your own COI, you have now initiated a call for coordinated attack of WP at the site. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT and has resulted in other edits being reverted, users being blocked, and now the page being protected from your further coordinated attacks. Your COI is apparent in this instance, as are your continued efforts to invoke disruptive editing at WP to make a point. Srobak (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Has this "call for action" resulted in anything? Ferrariman1954 is on the edge of an indefinite block, from where I'm standing, but since the most recent warning for outing I see no action taken on-wiki. If his off-wiki actions lead to disruption here then I'll block without hesitation. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it probably has... I'll wait for the protection to go and if it starts up again, then I'm blocking. -- Atama頭 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to also take a look at this. Search for "Outing Violation". Srobak (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, I have now refreshed the original ANI here as he has now OUTed for a 3rd time. Srobak (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene blocked Ferrariman1954 indefinitely, and beat me to it in the process. -- Atama頭 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey

• Adam Leitman Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Internalb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Intern4AG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthalf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Midget99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CU1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zqew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone more experienced look at this for me, an intern user:Internalb is editing the article in a promotional way along with five possible sockpuppets. Teapotgeorge 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Every single one of those editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the article is currently semi-protected to prevent new sockpuppets or IPs from arriving to continue the disruption, and cleanup of the article has begun, so I think this is resolved. -- Atama頭 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

• Rebel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added to the Rebel Wilson article the fact that she is endorsing Jenny Craig. This info was removed by an IP who signed their edit summary with the word "MANAGEMENT". I note that this IP has previously edited the page. Also, the fact that Wilson is Christian has been removed by another IP. It appears to me that Rebel Wilson and/or her management are exercising some type of editorial control over her biography. I request that my original edit stay in the article, but there is a more general problem here of conflict-of-interest, censorship and WP:OWN by the subject herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reinsert the material just yet, but I will suggest that the phrase "is overweight" is not necessary to the sentence you've added. If she's endorsing Jenny Craig, I think it's implied. Dayewalker (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too precious about keeping the 'overweight' part - that's just to put the endorsement in context. However, I don't think that anything should be "implied" on Misplaced Pages. We either say it or we don't say it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with COI IPs is always hard. With registered accounts you can leave a note on the person's talk page, or invite them to discuss matters at the article's talk page, etc. With IPs, you can try to contact the IP directly but if it's dynamic it's like trying to call someone up who keeps changing their phone number on a daily basis. In this case, 76.169.139.43 has held steady for 4 days, but for two months prior they edited as 76.169.137.168. And I'm guessing from an IP geolocation and the nature of their edits, 99.66.155.198 and 198.228.215.124 are also from Rebel Wilson's management. (The other IPs I checked trace back to Australia, not LA as the management IPs do.) You might just have to deal with the IP edits on their own merits. I don't think the frequency of disruption on the user page warrants semi-protection, and the edits from other IPs on the page have been constructive. -- Atama頭 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought as well. I am frustrated by her management/her having such influence over her biography. Note that she probably has representation both in the US and Australia, and may well be editing herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationals Park

• Nationals Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 216.15.0.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP made edits which were basically advertisements about the ballpark tours at Nationals Park . The edit describes the tours as "the best" in Major League Baseball and links to information about tickets. I tried geolocating the IP and it locates to Washington DC (I put the coordinates in Google Earth and it went to the National Christmas Tree, which I somehow don't think is the case, but nonetheless it does go to DC which seems accurate). Seems to me like this is some Washington Nationals employee trying to advertise their tours. One more thing - the Nationals are on the road right now, meaning tours are the only thing going on at the ballpark. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the COI is probable, but incidental. This is really just a spammer, and attempts to advertise should be reverted. If they had kept going I'd maybe block them briefly to get them to stop, but they only made a few edits over the course of an hour and I doubt we'll see them around again. -- Atama頭 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

KAYAK.com

• Kayak.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum to bring this issue, but do appreciate any guidance you can provide on how to properly address my concerns. I am a KAYAK.com employee and have been monitoring the page and noticed that information on the page needs updating to reflect more accurate information now available in our S1 statement. Many news sources have been using our wiki page and reporting dated information that is no longer accurate. I wanted to be respectful to the community's COI values, so I posted a suggestions of factual updates I would make to the right hand summary info box on the entry's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kayak.com). However, there does not seem to be much if any editorial eyeballs on it. Is it possible to draw attention this page or make these changes myself?

I also would like to elaborate on KAYAK.com's revenue model and products in a more organized fashion on the main entry of the page, but wanted to find out the appropriate manner to proceed with all of this. Happy to elaborate or draw out all proposed changes in depth on request. Really appreciate your response and guidance.

Ehoa (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much ! I think it's OK for you to be be bold here and just make the changes, but if you get in a conflict just get administrator attention. Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a thank you for disclosing your connection to the subject and taking the initiative to bring the matter to this noticeboard. If you do run into conflicts, that will weigh heavily in your favor if anyone objects to the information you want to add. I will second the suggestion that you should feel free to take the bold step yourself to implement the changes, and if anyone does in fact object then invite them to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Either result would be progress. -- Atama頭 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pullman Memorial Universalist Church

• Pullman Memorial Universalist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pmucpastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user admits to being the current pastor of this church. The article in its current form is gigantic, weakly sourced, and full of inappropriate tone, NPOV violations and problematic assertions. I also suspect copyright violations, but haven't done the research yet. Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a message for the author on the talk page. It is huge which would usually suggest a copyright violation. Because the author was so forth-coming on the talk page, I'm going to try and help out as much as I can. My help may be misguided but it's refreshing to deal with a person with a COI who isn't combating the problem and seems to genuinely want to improve the product. OlYeller 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the least misguided in what you're doing! Non-bitey, welcoming, but firm; just the way to do it. The pastor is forthright and straightforward; I just fear he(?) may be a little weak in understanding our rules about NPOV, sourcing and copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor's username is also against our policy (WP:ORGNAME) and I will recommend that they change it, but I don't think the matter even comes close to warranting a block in this case. -- Atama頭 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

David L. Gray

• David L. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saudia Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yosesphdaviyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The aforementioned user created said articles. This blog entry appears on davidlgray.info under "A Commentary on the Spiritual Life with Yoseph Daviyd", and references Saudia Mills as a personal friend. going up a level, the blog top page says "Welcome to my blog on the spiritual life. Feel liberated to post comments and pass along what you like. I update the blog about three times a week and write new articles at my website http://www.davidlgray.info/ about twice a month. Enjoy your visit and please keep me in your prayers! For updates about the blog, articles, and etc., just follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Blessings and Shalom! David L. Gray, Yoseph M. Daviyd". Therefore, the article on Gray is self-authored COI, and the one on Mills is also COI. I have warned the user, but I also believe that prodding the articles for not meeting GNG might lead to recreation. A CSD and SALT, I think, would be in order. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Under what grounds would they be speedied? Neither one is unduly promotional (David L. Gray has some peacock language to clean up but even mentions his 6 year prison sentence), both articles do a credible job of asserting significance enough to avoid A7. We don't yet have speedy criteria for autobiographies or other articles created by people with a COI. If you feel that a proposed deletion will be contested, and still feel that the articles deserve deletion, your best (and probably only) bet is to take them to WP:AFD. At that point, if the discussions result in a decision to delete, recreations can be speedily deleted through G4 and salted if they are repeatedly recreated (though I don't see any reason to think they would be at this point). -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See, I would say A7 because they don't meet GNG. For example, Gray's article's sources are entirely from books written by Gray (some self-published) and "usage of personal knowledge" from the author, which is not acceptable. I have found a few mentions of Gray in Masonic circles, but he is no more noted than any other Masonic writer, most of whom don't meet GNG either. It's simply the nature of fraternal activities that they do not alone confer notability; otherwise we'd have Grand Masters who served for a year who were simple local businessmen having WP articles, and that just makes no sense.

Mills' one claim to notability might be the show appearance, but according to the show's article, she was eliminated the week she appeared, and was an extra in all the other films listed. So I don't think she makes it, honestly.

So basically, there's a person with personal enough knowledge about these people to be friends with one of them and host a blog on the site of the other, who has professional photos of them he claims as his own work, and is writing articles about people who don't meet the GNG. I'd also note that a Google Books hit basically says one is the other , and I therefore have a serious issue with this user trying to pretend he's not this person and claim that he's writing from an NPOV position. So aside from a deletion item, the COI needs to be dealt with as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A7 has nothing to do with GNG. As it states on the policy page:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines."

The emphasis and wikilink aren't mine, they are in the policy itself. Furthermore, the footnote for the A7 criterion states:

"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."

Again, the emphasis and linking are preserved from the policy. Now, the COI is another issue. The editor's actions seem to suggest an intention to promote these people, so they are worth a review. I'll invite the editor to comment at this board, which we normally recommend anyway. -- Atama頭 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to get into semantics regarding CSD, so it's probably not an avenue worth pursuing. The below comments have shed some light on what is probably just a "series of unfortunate events", and at least the editor is willing to learn and be guided. I think we can make some headway, though I can't say at this juncture that that headway will lead to an article that meets GNG or the relevant specific notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ I am yosephdaviyd (a chosen handle for this wiki thing I wanted to do - sorry it is associated with my first file. I should have chosen barakobama I guess? How is one suppose to anonymous if their names are challenged?) - I am very new here. Had a discussion with MPJapan about the articles. I am in the process of adding citations right now, and removing what can't be cited in reliable sources. Before I untook my first wiki entries I research the COI and NPV and felt comfortable, even though I know the individuals that I am at the degree of friends with them to create a COI. As a Freemason I know 'Gray' the subject I write about - have read his books, was in his district were he worked, have listened to his lectures, but NOT friends other than facebook, but yes friends is a subjective word - though AGAIN I am comfortable to have a NPV there. Concerning 'Mill's', AGAIN, know of from High School, so I do have to remove the part about working in a factory - how esle would I know that than a Youtube video, but other than facebook, we are not friends as subjective as that word is. That she was on a reality show I thought she was notable. Same with Gray, author, speaker, television, radio, his work is cited by authors up and down that field. In closing, I am not so attached to any of these files that I will miss them, but they are my first and I am learning as I go - I appreciate your patience. This will help me in the future if I think it's worth the bother now. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Moreover, I can't help who I write about adds an OPENSOURCE bio to their website. Who would do that anyway? Unless they don't care who edits it. I thought that was strange, but the guy must google himself daily. But that is the risk he takes, and it's does rise to the level of collusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Lastly, he is Yoseph M. Daviyd - my handle is yosephdaviyd - NO "M". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you aren't Yoseph Daviyd? That you only picked the person's name because you liked it? If so, you should probably change it, per WP:REALNAME, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." -- Atama頭 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I am neither David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd) or Saudia Mills or any other person I will write about. Joseph David in Hebrew is Yoseph or Yosef Daviyd that's all, and Joseph David is much related to my actual name. Do you recommend that I delete the account and register new?--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My username currently is Yosesphdaviyd not yosephdaviyd - it's not the same if you actually look at it - there is 's' BEFORE the 'p'. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, in my judgement I'd leave it up to you. I don't think it's close enough that you have to change it, you're right that it's not the same (I did miss that extra S as well, you're right). You might want to change it to avoid other people getting confused and assuming you are the same Daviyd mentioned on Gray's web site, but it's also possible that it won't ever come up again. If you really like the name, go ahead and keep it. You might want to consider putting a disclaimer on your user page to state that you aren't Yoseph M. Daviyd, but again I'll just leave it up to you.

To get back to the COI question, if you do know the two people in question (Gray and Mills) you might want to at least have caution when editing articles about them or mentioning them. Mills, in particular, if you know her from high school, you could be considered to possibly have a conflict of interest. All that really means is that you should try to avoid any appearance that you are promoting them, and if anyone has concerns about contributions related to them, give the concerns some due consideration. But we don't forbid your editing about them. There a few subjects I might have a weak COI with, my employer has an article and I've never touched it, and Blaze Starr is a distant relative of mine (she is a cousin of my deceased grandfather) and I choose to avoid such subjects just in case, but that's a personal choice. Anyway, MSJapan was the person who opened this conversation and so I'll wait for any other concerns to be raised. -- Atama頭 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A.K.O.O Clothing

• A.K.O.O Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David Krochalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akoo Clothing Brand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently, Akoo Clothing Brand (talk · contribs) made a large addition to the article. I reverted the edit and the user was blocked because of their username. Today, a new account posted the exact same information to the article. It should be obvious but the user has a COI and they're more than just a fan (I can say more but don't want to out them). I'm somewhat busy with some other articles and was wondering if someone can help out. I think the user is earnestly attempting to improve the article and I have seen no reason to think that there will be problems. Their addition also seems to be very well formatted for a first time user so it shouldn't be too difficult to handle if you're new to COIs and want to help out. OlYeller 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No time to look into this further right this moment, but I'd like to point out that the creation of a new account is not only allowed, but in this case it is officially encouraged, because the previous block was only for the username and not for any behavioral problems. If the editor needs assistance later I'll see what I can do. -- Atama頭 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not suggesting that there's a strong COI here; quite the contrary. If I had enough time, I'd help improve the article with the new editor but as I have a finite amount of time to edit and have promised myself to other areas, I don't' think it's responsible for me to promise/dedicate myself to helping in this situation. While the editor hasn't shown that he wants to do anything that's contrary to WP's goals, he works for the company and I think that attention should be paid to the changes made in the article. OlYeller 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

COI on astrology pages

• Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Algol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ophiuchus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Currey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robertcurrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zachariel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petersburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aquirata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robertcurrey is an editor who identified himself as being the subject of this article: Robert Currey, see Talk. So off-wiki information can be considered for COI questions. I came across this Facebook page: , where he is asking for "help" and for people who know their way around the WP rules. This suggests a COI, and sounds like a "righting a great wrong" type of mission. Robertcurrey was already mentioned in the context of a previous astrology banning in March: .
When I tagged the Robert Currey article recently, two editors who never worked on the page before came out to remove the tag without addressing the problems on the page. This were Zachariel and Aquirata, an editor who was also involved in the same March bannings. Just see recent history on Robert Currey
Zachariel is making edits which almost invariably bring in references to skyscript.co.uk website. You can try to count them in Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer), a page he edited extensively and is now awaiting peer review. On the Algol page, Robertcurrey and Zachariel took turns to revert my edits that brought the article back to normal format for an astronomy page, even after several other editors pointed out that keeping astrology and astronomy to separate articles is a community concensus. Zachariel refused to put the astrology of Algol in Stars in astrology, and tried to delete that article to further his aim. Same scenario with Ophiuchus, where Zachariel goes on bringing back astrology stuff , even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was voted a Keep (he tried to delete that article as well). Continuing reverts against community concensus, and not responding to common sense questions. See the recent history on Ophiuchus and on the Talk there. And all these edits bring in references to same site. No COI?
Robertcurrey, Zachariel are now very busy on Astrology, where they have been joined by Petersburg, another editor who was involved in the March bannings. It looks like a concerted effort. Can somebody have a look? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I have an interest in astrology (mainly historical), but not a conflict of interest. My subject-knowledge was declared when I started to contribute to the Astrology Talk pages discussions:

“BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.”

This comment here gives as a clear an explanation as I am able to give as to why I do not have a COI, (for those who have not been able to witness the extent to which my contribution to WP has involved the supply of substantiating references, content with improved reliability, and frequent reminders of the need for consensus on edits based on verifiability through reliable sources).

Makesense64 has failed to inform you that he is the subject of an ongoing complaint on ANI involving, disruptive and tendentious editing, and his COI. The Skyscript site he mentions is notable as a web reservoir of hundreds of authorised articles that have been published in print elsewhere. (With regard to the Dennis Elwell biography, it is the only website which presents his material, including many of his well known articles published in other journals as well as a book-published interview with the subject). It is relevant that Makesense64 commenced his recent WP activity, after a 2-year hiatus, with a suggestion on the notability notice board that the site owner’s biography lacked notability, and that links or references to that site constituted spam. It later transpired this was two days after being banned from the forum of that site, and whilst he was engaging in a web-based hate campaign against the site owner who had banned him. Although presenting himself on WP as a sceptic, it is only western astrology/astrologers that he targets critically, having himself a notable commercial interest in Chinese astrology.

For the details, see the complaint discussed at length in on ANI. The other complaints he raises here have been discussed and answered there. (Robert Currey, incidentally, initiated that complaint saying: “his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors "

I was unaware of this complaint until just now, and assume the other editors are also uninformed (should they be?). I will make a note about this on the ANI complaint. Zac Δ talk 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only issue where I see our WP:COI guideline being applicable is in Robert Currey editing his own biography (which is already a self-acknowledged COI). Any issues outside of that are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, so if you have any current issues with Robert's actions at his own biography, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about them (saying "Just see recent history on Robert Currey" isn't sufficient to explain your concerns). If you're alleging that Zac or anyone else has a COI in regards to skyscript.co.uk (because they have a financial stake in the site, or are otherwise affiliated with it) you need to present clear evidence of this (without violating WP:OUTING), otherwise be aware of the bolded statement at the top of this noticeboard that states, "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you." If your concerns are unrelated to COI, considering that there is a very active thread on this topic already at WP:ANI, this request could be considered forum shopping. -- Atama頭 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Atama. Why is the scope of possible COI limited to Robert Currey editing his own biography?

He was warned for possible COI in astrology articles, as mentioned in the context of previous astrology bannings that I referred to.

He identifies himself as this editor who was not banned but warned, in a public facebook note where he is asking for "Help" in a group of astrologers. How does that rhyme with the WP policies? Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK? This is going to set an interesting precedent , if you ask me.

Only you are talking about possible financial stakes in skyscript.co.uk. I simply mention that most of Zac's edits that bring new sources, always seem to have references to the same dedicated astrology website. That's pointing out on-wiki activity isn't it? And once his reference is in, he is defending it with tooth and nail, as he did on Algol and now again on Ophiuchus, both being astronomy pages. If you were to check out all links to skyscript.co.uk on WP, then I guess you would find that more than half of them were added by the same editor Zac. That doesn't raise any red flags for possible COI?

My questions on WP:ANI were not addressed, so I took them here.

Have you seen Robert Currey and Zac address any of my questions? Where?

For example my questions about possible votestacking were never addressed by Robert. Then the artificial "concensus" based on that straw poll was used in the complaint against me. Not bad.

With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology). Here you can see the names that were submitted for invitation . Why was I not asked to submit a few names for invitation as well, just to keep it fair?

If I can also give a few names to have a look at this case, then I suggest User:Moreschi, who handled the previous problems on Astrology, which involved several of the names that have now returned to the same scene. He knows what kind of bans were given and whether they are still in effect.

I can also suggest User:DMacks, who has earlier removed Zacs constant rehashings of material related to an OUTING attempt that was deleted months ago, so he may remember something on that side of the story.

My tags on Robert Currey being quickly undone by first Zachariel and then Aquirata cannot be brushed away as meaningless. Both editors had never done anything on that article before, so it is pure coincidence? How did they know about the tags? No MEAT? Just see the page history since July 9th (there have only been 8 edits since, so you can easily see it without me bringing the diffs.)

Awaiting some answers... MakeSense64 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have contributed a mass of references and citations from primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers. You are the one with the Skyscript hang-up, not me. Given the site owner’s statement that you were banned from this website just two days before you reinitiated your WP editing, and targetted her WP biography negatively whilst simultaneously engineering a hate campaign against her, for no other reason than because she banned you from the Skyscript forum for being a trouble-maker, I think it's clear to see where the issue of COI really lies. The ANI discussion covered all these points in full, and the editor CycloneGU, who I have had no other connection with ever, merely interceded to ensure that fair play was observed. You are foolish to keep trying to raise controversy again, and suspicions of plots (for what? improved verification of WP content?). It seems to me that you cannot help acting disruptively, and will never cease projecting onto other editors who are contributing positively, the dubious motives that underlie your own troublesome behaviour.Zac Δ talk 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewind noise. Hold on, let's back the train up here.

With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through , who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology).

Some points:

1. I have not, to my knowledge, edited on a single astrology article. Yes, I say on my userpage that I am a Virgo, but that does not imply any sort of conflict of interest, merely that it's my astrological sign. Yes, I also say I'm a monkey, but that does not signify a conflict of interest, merely that it's my Zodiac sign. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. When Zac first appeared at AN/I indicating he could provide some information, I encouraged him to go ahead and comment while myself having no clue what was going on or what he would reveal. This was the first time I have met Zac on the wiki and since my minor involvement we have not communicated, except him notifying me that you mentioned my name as a possible COI. Even look on my talk page, it's right there, nothing archived yet. He indicated he knew some people who might have been involved with the dispute; I asked him to give me names and I would give neutral notifications of the thread. I have been accused in the past of Wikicanvassing (with one user *LOL*) and didn't want him accused of trying to get people to side with him, so I offered to be tyhe neutral third party. I AM STILL NEUTRAL. One of these editors commented at AN/I that they weren't really involved, so I left another note apologizing if I was in error, and didn't keep up contact with the other five people. Further, other than maybe one or two additional comments at AN/I, I have not even LOOKED at the debate (which is now archived, incidentally).
3. I have not taken a side in this discussion, and I find it ridiculous that you seem to think I have some perceived conflict of interest just because I state on my user page that I'm a Virgin Monkey (so to speak). This is merely looking to create a conflict where none exists, and tends to point out that you are the type of editor who thrives on conflict - not the type of editor we need on Misplaced Pages.
4. I get the feeling also, from your comments, that you are implying that Zac and I are the same person. Go ahead. File an SPI. Prepare to have egg on your face.

I politely demand an apology for the accusation of a conflict of interest on a subject that has very little interest to me, either in profession or in editing patterns. CycloneGU (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see me accuse you as having a conflict of interest here? Your name was not added to the list, and my only comment about you was "(probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology)", which I think is a fair comment if somebody starts his user page by stating his star sign. Do you agree that I was not asked to suggest a few names as well? Which would only have been fair?

There are too many unanswered questions, and Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?

Given all these irregularities, possible votestacking should be ruled out , and all I ask for is that some other admin also takes a look at this, not just the names that Zac gave you. Is that too much to ask? Let Atama answer my question, he is the only admin who has shown up for this case so far. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why raise an issue if you don't intend to make any point of it? I notifed several parties at his request. That's all I did. I never saw such a request from you, so I couldn't exchange the favour. So why bring it up?

You will also note I am currently contacting an admin. regarding this per your request just now. CycloneGU (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if you want to play an intermediary role, then you should always communicate directly with both sides. That clearly hasn't happened. I was supposed to notice Zac's request in between the long and repetitive rants he was giving there?

Fact is that you notified seven or more names that he suggested to you, without even asking if I was OK with them. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He was bringing an AN/I case against you and asked in the discussion, "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing." I of course encouraged him to give me the names so he wouldn't be seen as canvassing in the event his memo came off as being slanted on his side (which would be canvassing). You never made any such request that I saw, so if I incorrectly presumed you had no one to invite then I apologize. However, all I did was notify people, I did not provide my own opinion. Even in my first comment I merely asked if "we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify". CycloneGU (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just think you should be more carefully if you pick up a mediator role. Canvassing problems not only come from possibly writing a non-neutral message to invite other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is also a potential problem, so if you just invite the names passed on to you by one of the parties in a complaint, then there can be a problem. Do you agree? Atama now says that I can also notify a few users of my choice, so I will do that.

BTW, you say, "I am still neutral" in capital letters, but this doesn't look like the remarks by a neutral editor to me: MakeSense64 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) So I'd like to address some questions posed to me earlier above by MakeSense64.

1. Robert Currey shouldn't be warned about a COI at all astrology pages. COI doesn't work that way. A conflict of interest can't apply to a whole field of interest. In fact, our COI guideline specifically states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." If someone warned Robert of a COI in the past on that matter, I believe that was a mistake. Now, that's not to say that Robert couldn't be warned about problematic behavior in general about astrology-related topics, that's what we have topic bans for. But that's different from having a COI.
2. If Zac prefers Skyscript as a source, that doesn't in itself constitute a COI. We all have our favorite places to use as sources. As long as those sources follow WP:RS, it shouldn't be an issue. If there was any indication that Zac was personally involved with the site in any way, that would be a different story. From what Zac said above, the only COI I can see with the site is yours.
3. If you feel that you had questions at ANI that weren't addressed, then they should be brought to an appropriate venue (including possibly another request at ANI), but this noticeboard is only for discussing COI-related issues. Please note that at the time I posted above (3 days ago) the ANI discussion was still active, and opening up another request at the same time at a different place for the same topic is at the very least frowned upon, and if it looks like you're just not accepting a decision in one venue and trying to find a favorable one in another, that could be considered forum shopping and is potentially sanctionable. (I'm not saying that's what you did but just know that it could be seen that way.)
4. If you have specific questions for Zac and Robert that you feel haven't been addressed yet, ask them again here and I'll try to see that they get answered (even if you don't like the answers).
5. If you're alleging canvassing from Robert for a straw poll, that should be addressed I agree, I don't see that it was when you had asked it before.
6. I think it was obvious why you weren't asked to submit names for invitation to the ANI discussion, the complaint was about you after all. There's nothing unfair or inappropriate about that. ANI isn't like RfA or AfD or RfC where there is some kind of a vote or !vote being held, so if you're asking for people to back you up, there can't be any accusation of "votestacking". The only requirement at ANI is that you notify people who are being discussed, anyone else you choose to notify or not notify is up to the individual.
7. If you want Moreschi to comment here, just ask him. There's nothing wrong with that, it might be helpful. The same with DMacks. It's up to them whether they have the time or desire to respond, of course.
8. My guess about the tags being removed by Zac and Aquirata is that they were checking your contributions, and reverting edits they thought were problematic. There's nothing wrong with that, per WP:HOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I do it myself for certain editors. If they were doing so just to cause distress for you, and no other reason, then that's considered harassment, but I don't see it that way.

I think those were all the questions posed to me before. -- Atama頭 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. I will await Robert's comments on the votestacking questions.

These questions I didn't see addressed yet:

* "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?"

* What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?

In reply to your comments:

As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into WP:PROMOTION ? Zac's earliest contributions to WP consisted mainly of adding external links to his "favorite site". He has continued doing so, and now ads them as references in articles, even though several other editors have pointed out that it is not a reliable source in most cases. I have removed a few of his edits where they are completely out of place, for example in astronomy articles.

So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me.

As for possible MEAT. Zac following my edits would not be a surprise. But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?

As for this group of editors taking turns to revert my edits on Astrology, here is the latest example: . A very reasonably edit if you ask me, but promptly reverted by User:Petersburg , who went on to add a long list of names, making it look like an exagerated testimonials section.

I will invite Moreschi, DMacks and also Acabashi, who worked on the Dennis Elwell article with Zac and me.

On a related note: Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?

On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22.

Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?

Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV.

MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 says in his post above: “Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?”

So let me answer as clearly as I can, because my contribution history is self-evident, and I’m willing to explore any question (in fact I have done this many times but Makesense64 prefers to ignore my responses and direct attention away from them). Also, I am not repeating information removed by the OUTING policy – the removed material revealed Maksesnse64’s off-wiki identity and other information that I have not referred to. I have asked for clarification of this point before and no one has said that referring to the material that has been allowed to remain, or discussing how it points to Makesense64 having a COI himself, is breaking any kind of policy. If someone other than Makesense64 (who was responsible for removing a lot of the relevant discussion himself) suggests it is; then I will cease to refer to it. However, it is hard to see how it is not directly relevant since the entire basis of his complaint against me is that I have provided references that utilise a website which he alone has a problem with (and this information reveals the reason why).

My contribution history shows that my otherwise quiet account became activated with my first discussion page contribution on 2nd June this year, directly in response to Makesense64 giving me a ‘final warning’ for spamming because I placed three relevant links to this site on WP. I was taken aback by the hostility of his notice and explained that I had seen the tags asking for references in support of notability and had placed three links to published interviews with biography subjects that were published on that site. My explanation was given clearly there and on the talk page of the biography of the owner of the site: that web domain is a known and respected source of published articles and book extracts that are not readily available on the web elsewhere. (see also).

To verify that this is the simple fact of the matter, merely take a look at Google Books to see how many independently published books make use of that site in their own references and citations. Also note how it is also used as a reference by many works listed in Google scholar.

So we can be clear that this site is a suitable source for independent reference – and it is convenient to be able to check the content of the pre-published articles online.

I could not understand why Makesense64’s objected to references to that site, or accused me of having a COI from the start, when I asked him to agree that it was not spamming to add an external link to a website which was created by the biography subject – especially when the creation of that website is part of the reason for her notability.

So I consider it very relevant that a few days later the site owner gave a statement to explain how this 'objecting editor' (Makesense64) was someone she had banned from the forum of her website a few days earlier, for creating a nuisance in his astrologcal arguments. Also, that he was perpetuating a hate campaign against her and her website, on off-wiki websites, at the same time that he was arguing here that any link which went to her website from Misplaced Pages was spam. And that his first action on reactivating his dormant WP account was to target her biography with suggestions that it lacked notability.

There has never been any inappropriate use of that site from me, and I have nothing to gain from adding links to it. It is merely convenient because it reproduces articles published in other independently published sources, which are not available on the web elsewhere. The most substantial reference to the site was in the case of the Dennis Elwell biography that Makesense64 has mentioned above – and here only because the site included an interview and reproduced published articles which substantiated the commentary in his biography.

I have never argued in favour of retaining links to Skyscript where other sources could be used instead. Even when I have witnessed Makesense64 disingenuously trying to suggest that the site is not a reputable one – in which case I make the argument appropriately, without revealing my own knowledge of how he has his own personal vendetta against the owner of the site. In these situations I have also not revealed my own knowledge of how his vendetta is rooted in professional conflict which holds a financial interest for him, presenting another COI in the way that he champions Chinese astrology methods, whilst seeking to remove reference to (or retain misinformation about) western astrology. I can qualify that without revealing his off-wiki identity if it is appropriate to do so. I believe it is, since he has raised the issue of COI himself. Or I can submit it privately to arbitration if it sails too close to outing policy concerns.

I have nothing to gain professionally or financially by the contributions I make to Misplaced Pages. I was unaware of the astrology-content problems that needed correction until Makesense64 forced my attention towards them; and my motivation for contributing should be clear enough from the fact that my contributions have been positive ones, which have replaced a lot of unreliable information with clearer explanations attributed to reliable sources (as I said before: primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers).

I too feel there is an apology owed to me from Makesense64, for suggesting that I spam, for suggesting that I have ulterior motives for providing the citations I provide, for suggesting that my arguments on the Algol and Ophiuchus pages were anything but legitimate, and for continually obstructing my well intentioned contributions to the extent that I even changed my user-name in the naive hope that it would free me from his ongoing harassment. If there is any reason for pursuing COI concerns here, the attention has to be returned to Makesense64 who has been criticized for being disruptive by many other editors – as the ANI complaint demonstrated. I am not aware of that being the case for any of the other editors mentioned. I also feel it is relevant that he has initiated four groundless complaints against me so far, and despite all the good reasons why I could initiate complaints against him, I haven't bothered to do that because I'm here to contribute and substantiate content not pursue these endlessly destructive, time-wasting, editor-discussions. I only spoke out to support the ANI complaint made against Makesense64 initiated by Robert Currey because there was such good grounds to do so. From everything I have witnessed of Robert Curry's contributions here they have never been anything but constructive, civil, fair, and seeking to ensure neutrality at all times. My experience with Makesense64's 'contributions' is the direct opposite to that. Zac Δ talk 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not expressed my opinion formally before, but now am prepared to do so.

MakeSense64: Using your being banished from another web site to take out a personal vendetta against it on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable. It is considered disruptive editing and is grounds for being blocked, and even completely banned if it continues after that. Further, going around and harassing users innocent of any wrongdoing of having a conflict of interest is entirely unfounded; there has to be some gain by the material being used in the article for them to have a COI. Also, this account above and the information provided in it convincingly shows that you are in the wrong here; not Zac, not Robert, not anyone else here. This is your vendetta.

I'm not going to close this myself (like I might at AN/I right now), but rather will suggest for administrative review having MakeSense64 topic-banned from all astrology articles. Having such a vendetta tells me that MakeSense64 has a COI of the opposite type; he feels wronged by the site and wants to have his revenge. A topic ban seems appropriate. This seems to be another instance of a boomerang being thrown and not noticed on its return. CycloneGU (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, Cyclone, I've seen the same people with basically the same dispute at a couple of boards now over the last two months, and I'm beginning to think that you're right. It's a big encyclopedia: there's no need for these people to keep butting heads, and I don't think they would be, except that one of them is trying to (ab)use Misplaced Pages to accomplish a goal unrelated to Misplaced Pages's goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Raj Reddy and User:Srinimisha

User:Srinimisha admitted that he is employed by Raj Reddy to edit Reddy's Misplaced Pages page. I have warned him multiple times, but he keeps introducing the same promotional, unsourced, material, removing maintenance templates, and refusing to discuss the problem. What should I do? --Muhandes (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for edit warring, and given further warnings on promotion and conflict of interest. I will be willing to consider whether any further steps are needed if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

• Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a general article about insititutions concerned with acquiring and promulgating knowledge from ancient antiquity to present times. Miradre (talk · contribs) has suggested that, because he suspects Itsmejudith and me of being employed within academia, this creates a conflict of interest in editing this particular article. Was it appropriate for Miradre to raise such objections? Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect and false description. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit that article. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material User:Miradre/sandbox everything of which they want to exclude. (Obviously, I have no objections regarding academics editing their area of academic expertise.) Anyway, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing or made any complaint regarding this..Miradre (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs. Edits of this kind create a toxic editing environment. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing (as I see it not all COI prevents editing) or made any complaint regarding this. I asked if there may be a WP:COI, not that there is one that prevents editing, as well as asked if you are an academic (obviously no issue at all if you are not).Miradre (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What business is it of yours who my employer is? Your questions are obnoxious and prying. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI (My bolding): "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Misplaced Pages policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." Miradre (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is fully aware who I am because of recent outing problems. You have made an incorrect assumption about me and my employer (if you were reading about my wikipedia account on Stormfront, the information there is wrong). As far as the message above goes, please read WP:DTTR. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you was an academic since, as I stated at the time, you describe yourself as a "professional pure mathematician". If you are not an academic, then obviously there is no possible COI regarding this for you.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you that your double guessing about my employer is flawed. It is also against wikipedia policy. Some people would call anybody with a PhD an academic. Given that, don't you think it's about time to call an end to your failed attempt to WP:GAME the system? I'll give you two marks out of ten for determination with one mark subtracted for poor presentation. Class dismissed! Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The suggestion implicit in "since you yourself are an academic, may there be a WP:COI here?" (that an academic may have a COI when editing Academia) is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or is an attempt to use any available technique in a disagreement. The text quoted above ending with "appreciate your honesty" is again misguided or indicative of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent me. I have never claimed that simply editing the academia article is COI. Read above. Neither have I claimed that a COI would definitely prevent editing or made such a complaint. But at least a possible COI is useful to know for everyone involved and the policy encourages such a disclosure.Miradre (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So when you suggest that an academic may have a WP:COI on the talk page of an article, you don't mean it? Again, there is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no COI for most material in the Academia article. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit the Academia article at all. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material: User:Miradre/sandbox. Miradre (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no COI for an academic if they delete cherry-picked undue material from an article on academia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not "cherry-picked" and if it was then that is a reason for adding more balancing material but it is not a reason for deletion. If editing (and in particular completely deleting all the material) was a COI was the issue I wanted to discuss. Miradre (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK for academics to edit the article Academia? Someone has suggested that I have a conflict of interest because I am an academic. How about all the articles in the scope of WikiProject Universities? And membership of that WikiProject? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section above with exactly the same name.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall see it. I have asked some further questions here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just merged this section with the previous one. Hope this is OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that would properly be described as a conflict of interest here, as Misplaced Pages defines the term. Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of COI editing is "a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." In that light, does an extensive rehash of 21st-century American conservative criticisms of U.S. academia belong in a general article on academia? Shoehorning that material into the general article seems to suggest the sort of myopia alluded to in WP:COI. I mean, since we're here. MastCell  19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a notable debate in academic sources, major newspapers, and notable non-fiction books. Are you suggesting that these are not acceptable references for Misplaced Pages? Miradre (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we're here, I suggested early on that some of it could go into Higher education in the United States. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before this moves further from the topic note that the issue is discussed here: Talk:Academia Miradre (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed this discussion, and first I want to point out -- whoever is bringing something to COIN, should ideally do a more diligent job of exposing what the debate is about. Please note that there has been very little input from uninvolved editors here; I'd suggest that simply including a diff in the initial posting (like this one, which shows the bulk of the content Miradre added) would make it much easier for others to weigh in.

On the content itself: it appears to me that this substantial content addition is going into the wrong article (though a summary or brief treatment of this topic may be appropriate to Academia); and that regardless of where it is added, it's a delicate subject that should ideally be discussed in some depth as the content is developed.

The accusation of a conflict of interest appears wholly without merit. Furthermore, this this by Miradre seems like an ill-advised step (see the warning at the top of this editing window about the harassment policy superseding the COI guideline). To make such a spurious accusation of COI strikes me as a deeply anti-collaborative step to take; better to address the merits of your fellow editors' arguments, than to question the legitimacy of their participation. I think this situation could benefit from some kind of intervention or informal mediation, but the COI noticeboard isn't the right venue. -Pete (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything I added is here User:Miradre/sandbox or here if you prefer a diff: . This version is in all aspects a better version. Regarding WP:COI we obviously have it for a reason. I am pretty sure academics can have COI issues just like everyone else. If nothing else declaring a possible COI is encouraged. As already stated, I took up the issue for discussion. But I have never stated that this prevented anyone from editing or made any complaint.Miradre (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, you are responding here to accusations I did not make. My first paragraph, above, was not addressed to you, but to MathSci (the person who brought the complaint to COIN). I was merely making a practical suggestion to him/her, about setting up a discussion like this for more participation, not implicating anybody for failing to disclose anything. I've reread my post, and think I was pretty clear; your reaction seems out of proportion with what I said.

Regarding your last point, that you merely "took up the issue for discussion," I think Atama addresses it well below. In my view, there is nothing "mere" about "bringing it up" four times in rapid succession. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See below for 4 times accusation.Miradre (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For Miradre, two things. First, does being an "academic" (which is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless as a label) mean that someone has a COI at the academia article? Essentially, is a person employed in a particular field considered to have a COI when editing an article about or related to that field? The answer to that question is an unambiguous no. This is very clearly covered in our conflict of interest guideline where it states, with no ambiguity, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Aside from the official guideline, though, it would be absurd to suggest there could be. If Misplaced Pages actually discouraged professionals from editing articles that fall under their area of expertise, then Misplaced Pages would be a joke. You want to encourage experts when you can, as long as those experts are willing and able to follow our guidelines and policies in the process (since self-promotion or the advancement of pet theories, biases, or grudges are plausible for such persons). But again, it's not a COI to be a professional in the topic area and you should know that just by reading our guideline.

The other issue is whether or not we can ask people if they have a COI or have a particular employer. If you have a justification for suspecting that a person does, because of that person's actions or other on-wiki information, you most certainly are allowed to ask, respectfully. And if the person declines to answer, or gives an answer you don't like, you need to accept it. Asking it once is reasonable, asking 4 times is harassment. I hope you won't repeat that behavior any further. -- Atama頭 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." True, as I stated above. However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia. Regarding asking if Mathsci was an academic I think I did it only once.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Then you think wrong. MathSci listed four diffs above. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First diff is not a reply to MathSci. Second and fourth are not questions. Only the third is question which I never repeated.Miradre (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia." That makes no sense to me, did that make sense to anyone else? That seems like a non sequitur to me, and seems to have nothing to do with conflicts of interest, or anything you have previously said on this board. You said, "I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group". That has nothing to do with whether or not "all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia". And it doesn't matter if your statements are in the form of a question (this isn't Jeopardy!), just bringing up the fact that you suspect that a person has a COI on a talk page where the person is actively participating counts at least as an implicit question. And yes, there were 4 diffs there showing you doing exactly that. So all I'm saying on that matter is two things; drop it so that you can avoid sanctions for harassment (which I hope you've done by now) and as a general piece of advice, just ask someone and accept the answer or lack of an answer. -- Atama頭 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the basic misunderstanding is that not all academics are academic experts about the academia. The rule you cited only applies to that area of expertise. To make it clearer, one of my sources implies that there may be massive discrimination against women, practising Christian, and conservative academics. This a potentially gigantic problems for the academic institutions (lawsuits and so on) that employ academics. Not to mention to the academics that may have been discriminated (or reversely gained unfairly). Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area. I only asked once and I repeat that only took this matter up for discussion and never claimed that someone could not edit the article or made no complaint here. I do not plan to do so in the future. Hopefully this will finish the matter.Miradre (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this in any way relevant to me? Here is the relevant sequence of diffs from Talk:Academia and here. Miradre apparently felt justified in making these comments and inferences because of what was written on my user page. Once I had refused to comment, Miradre should have dropped it. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You opened a complaint here and expect me to not defend myself and explain my edits? You cite my explanations of my earlier edits on this page as evidence? Mathsci, for the last 4 days you done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages, including to articles you have never edited before, made complaints and reverted my edits, and made complaints to several different noticeboards. Stop the harassment. Miradre (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area." Anyone, academic or not, would normally be considered to have a COI if they edit an article related to their employer. Editing related to their employment (i.e. the reason they are employed, as in their field) is not a COI. For example, if an MD made a change to the physician article that removed information from the "Physicians' own health" section that said that "doctors make the worst patients", that's not a COI. Any benefit that the MD could personally receive from such an action is so remote that the accusation of COI is pretty far-fetched. Nor do we consider zookeepers to have a COI at articles about zoos in general, unless the zookeeper was editing related to their particular zoo. I want to make sure you understand this, because your statements in the past at the very least suggest a far stricter standard for determining COI than our guidelines suggest, to the extent of bothering at least one editor through repeated insinuations. I know you didn't suggest any sanctions against Mathsci, and in turn I'm not suggesting any against you, but I would really like to make sure we're clear so that you can avoid similar unnecessary disputes in the future. -- Atama頭 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. As I said I raised the issue for discussion. Also for clarifying the situation. Thanks for clarifying.Miradre (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, you opened the discussion, are you satisfied at this point? Miradre isn't going to pester you and I think the subject has been beaten up as much as it can be without getting repetitive. Multiple people in this thread (not just me) have confirmed that there shouldn't be any COI in regards to your edits to Academia so I'd say your question has been answered. -- Atama頭 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. I had already prepared a response, so here is a slighty edited version. Miradre has already been warned by an adminstrator (Atama) to stop harrassing me. Another administrator (MastCell) has explained to Miradre that her claims of COI are without any merit. On WP:ANI, on ArbCom case pages or indeed anywhere on wikipedia, user conduct is subject to scrutiny. Miradre should take stock of what has been said here and move on. That includes ceasing to make bad faith statements about experienced editors in similar circumstances. Miradre's claims of COI prompted me and later Itsmejudith separately and indepedently to open queries at this noticeboard, which I later merged. We were the victims and Miradre would do well to remember that. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, I think everybody in this discussion is in agreement on the one point relevant to this noticeboard: there is no actionable COI. I agree that we should consider this matter closed. -Pete (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibition drill

• Exhibition drill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drill team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Mexico Military Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jkmarshall001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jkmarshall001 inserted the following text, among other things, into the listed articles; the text appears to be conflict of interest at worst, and promotional in nature at best: *John K. Marshall developed and published a complete system (see both, The World Drill Association Adjudication Manual and Rule Book and Continuing Education for the Visual Adjudicator) for judging military drill competitions in 2009. The system can be used for all phases of a drill meet (XD, RD GC and honor guard), as of 2011 is currently used for some XD-only competitions including those hosted by the Exhibition Drill Competition Association . This system was derived from Marshall's extensive work in judging, teaching and/or performing with sister pageantry arts (indoor color guard and percussion, marching band/drum corps and military drill teams) around the world for more than 20 years. While this system is new and not widely used, it is the standard when judging a visual-based performance. -199.173.225.33 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, you're not being ignored here, I read this before and looked at the editor's talk page and have some concerns but I won't be able to address anything now, if anyone else wants to jump on it feel free. -- Atama頭 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So to follow up... Exhibition drill doesn't seem to have anything self-promotional from Marshall, his involvement at that article is primarily to try to redirect it. I did find that self-promotional material was added to the other two, and cleaned it out from Drill team (it was already removed from New Mexico Military Institute). I left the editor a notice about this noticeboard message and a warning about WP:COI and WP:SPAM. -- Atama頭 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

• Walter De Brouwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lavidat8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This series of SPA edits replicates earlier COI edits made by SPA User:Asterysk and reverted after an earlier COI/N. Jokestress (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have taken this to WP:SPI but it's so obvious that it's not worth the effort. Per WP:DUCK these are the same people. Asterysk was reverted in their efforts to change the article, and made appeals to other editors for assistance, but kept receiving the same (correct) advice about following our policies and guidelines, and attempting to use the talk page to work out the dispute rather than repeatedly attempting to change the main page. And so Asterysk completely stopped editing, and Lavidat8 began editing the same article in the same manner, apparently to try to evade scrutiny, since the COI was established for Asterysk. Obviously that attempt was a failure. I've blocked Lavidat8 indefinitely, and blocked Asterysk for a week (I don't feel that these actions warrant an indefinite block). At the expiration of the week I hope that Asterysk begins taking the advice of other editors. -- Atama頭 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ZenQuest Martial Arts Center

Although this article seems to be well written, the primary editor on it even admited to, "creating a page for my dojo." I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but the page seems to be violating the WP:NPOV, notability and advertising policies.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Some observations... First, you were correct to bring this matter to this noticeboard, this is a clear conflict of interest and there certainly have been problems with the article due to that COI as you stated. However, the article is also fairly well-written as you said. The article's creator self-disclosed the COI in the article's creation, which we encourage. The editor in question (3family6) is a prolific and experienced Misplaced Pages editor, with a number of acknowledgements and awards from his contributions. Ukexpat has made a good start in cleaning up some of the biggest problems with the article, though more attention is probably needed (I might have a stab at it myself). I've reminded 3family6 of our COI guideline and notified him of this noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone did go over the article. When it was reviewed there was some mention of promo-like material, and I fixed some of it, and Ukexpat did further work on it, I realize that there could easily be more COI problems. I am fully that my relationship with the subject makes it difficult to notice NPOV issues and the like (and I've noticed that I tend to promote whatever subject I'm doing on Misplaced Pages, no matter my affiliation), so I would actually appreciate it if the article was looked over.--3family6 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits

Can we get more editors watching Category:Requested edits please? There's some requests that have been sitting there for months... We ask them to use Template:Request edit and get them to jump through all these hoops and when they do and do their best to follow all our rules and their request just sits there without a response, I'm sure it must be very frustrating for them. I'm totally opposed to promotional editing, but I believe we should be as accommodating as possible when they do follow our guidelines to the letter. -- œ 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like maybe someone work has been done today (not many requests left). I removed two that no longer applied but Product Red needs help. At least two editors have repeatedly requested edits and it looks like they've gone ahead and made a few. If anyone goes there to help, I ask that you not template the page with {{COI}}. The editors who have identified themselves as being "from" RED have been very forthcoming and requested changes be made several times so tagging the page now would be a slap in the face, in my opinion.

I never realized requests sometimes took so long to fulfill. I'll keep an eye on that category from now on. I'll try to work on the RED page when I get time but it might be a little while as I've promised my help to some other pages. OlYeller 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A publishing company seems to have own account

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came upon Stefan Tegenfalk while new page patrolling. It was a page about an author. It was originally written by Massolitpublishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Quite obviously, I have concerns about a new editor/editors not understanding Misplaced Pages policy. I will leave a message on the user talk page after I finish writing this, but request assistance in dealing with this situation. --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The user seems to be blocked, now. I dream of horses (T) @ 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen Gibson Roc

• Karen Gibson Roc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Karengibsonroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is working on what appears to be an autobiography. I've added COI, REF and notability tags to the article which were removed. I probably should have taken it to talk but since it's a COI matter first and foremost I figured I'd get it here and I will bring up those issues on the talk page when this issue is dealt with (either by block or not, I'm not sure what COI protocol is) I also left COI info on her talk page. Nformation 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User is attempting to remove maintenance templates and add a discogs link for purchasing albums. They're currently on L3 warning for maintenance tag removal. Most disconcertingly, the last time the user removed the templates, they claimed that the issues had been solved when they obviously had not been (falsified an edit summary to remove a COI tag from their autobiography). OlYeller 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Issued a L4 warning. The editor made a statement in the last edit summary that, "Changes will no longer be made with this account, all changes have been made to adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia, all information included in this article are verifiable, therefore we have removed the alerts, thank you". I've replaced the BLPRefImprove template and Notability template until those issues can be addressed. I've also left the COI template on the article until the subject is no longer editing the page. OlYeller 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark Friedman

• Results-Based Accountability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Friedman (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Accountability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Markfriedman28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled upon Results-Based Accountability and noticed the signs of a COI. Page history shows that the page was edited by an account that shares the name of the person who allegedly invented "Results-Based Accountability". User has also edited other pages related to that person. Has added links to places where the products created by Mark Friedman can be purchased. I'd take care of it but I don't have time at the moment to run a comb through the account's edits and clean up the issues. OlYeller 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maynilad Water Services Inc

• Maynilad Water Services Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MWSI CC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MWSI CC (talk · contribs), clearly a representative of the company, is repeatedly removing my coi template, despite a request not to do so. They have also made a large number of edits to the article which show a conflict of interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is a monumental spamfest and I have tagged it for deletion as such. I have also reported the user name to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also a copyvio and I tagged it as such. I'd like to add to the report that two other accounts (Wicko665 (talk · contribs) and Boogyboy1978 (talk · contribs)) edited the article and are most likely puppets of some variety. OlYeller 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor is blocked. Article was deleted. Unless they pop back up again, this issue seems to be solved. OlYeller 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Ebeling

• Richard Ebeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard Ebeling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The biography article appears to be mostly being edited by the article's subject. I'm not sure how much inappropriate stuff is in the text of the article, but the writings seem to be pretty radically over-linked. I'd rather avoid working directly on the article because it might be perceived as part of mainstream-vs-mainstream economist conflict. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Eva Zeisel

• Eva Zeisel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eva zeisel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pretty obvious. I doubt this is actually Eva Zeisel (who is 104 years old), though it would be pretty cool if she's online (she is still designing.) --jpgordon 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the user to confirm whether or not they are indeed Eva Zeisel. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Mantello and about 40 others

• Joe Mantello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Danielle Drees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User adding WP:REFSPAM and internal links to BOMB Magazine. The material added typically describes an interview with the spammed article's subject and is cited to a BOMB article written by Jenefer Shute. User sometimes comes back later to add an external link as well. User page states they are an intern for BOMB. --CliffC (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution